PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

Re: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

Randy Turner (
Thu, 03 Apr 1997 20:24:14 -0800

Ira Mcdonald x10962 wrote:
> Hi PWG folks,
> The requirement for two independent AND interoperable implementations is
> ONLY for the transition from Draft Standard to [Official] Standard, per
> the excerpt from Internet Official Protocol Standard (RFC 2000), below.
> Nonetheless, the best practice is considered to be a proof that BOTH
> independent AND interoperable implementations exist BEFORE advancing
> from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.

Thats not exactly true. Scott Bradner told Chris, Lloyd, and I (at the
last plenary) that two independent and interoperable implementations is
typically required for advancement to draft standard. This is beared out
in the latest RFC 2026 "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3",
section 4.1.2 specifically.


> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------<
> RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
> 1. The Standardization Process
> The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
> define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for
> the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
> and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
> Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
> (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
> and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the
> goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
> co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
> > are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive
> > description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
> The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
> activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
> Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
> series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
> standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
> testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
> > number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering
> > Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
> > advancement of the protocol.
> To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
> standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
> proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
> before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
> > It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
> > draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
> > the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to
> > standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
> > interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
> > recommendation of the IESG).
> In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
> concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
> consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
> purpose of recommending an explicit action.
> Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
> since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
> (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to
> draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
> major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
> likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------<